The PC Collector
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by The PC Collector
-
-
1 minute ago, slightlytreasonous said:
Have you sent the ships of the class to port, or are they at sea still?
All of them have to be at port?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:
You have to select a design and enter the ship designer, then click the wrench to refit.
Okay... I have done so... And I see the upgraded version there, but the option to refit is still unavailable.. and I can't even build the new variant.
-
Okay, stupid question: How does the refit option works? No matter how much techs I discover, the option keep being unavailable for my ships.
-
1
-
-
Something random I noticed: The port in north western Spain is written as "La Corunia", and the correct name is "La Coruña".
-
1
-
-
Okay, some odd things I noticed... The increased beam/draught allows hulls to go way above their theoretical max tonnage. Is that intended, or is some kind of bug?
Also, maximum optimal ship on hulls are not indicated.
Besides, I somehow expected that the beam increase function allowed for bigger side guns on pre dreadnoughts... And that's not happening, I'm afraid-
5
-
-
Edit: Nevermind, the problems disappeared upon game restart.
-
16 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
You do realize GameLabs company is spread around the world, located in Ukraine, Russia, Greece, Dubai, Italy and Estonia, head office in Kiev. It has been posted that UAD team works out of Athens by forum users.
Please don't post shit unless you have official statements.
I hope you're right, some good news, even if they are in something so minor given the overall situation, would be much appreciated right now.
-
1
-
-
For f**k sake, you two! If you want to keep this rant take it to DMs!
-
8
-
1
-
-
We have to be realistic, they have other priorities now. I really hope that they are safe, but this pretty much means that it is time to assume that this is pretty much dead.
Stay safe, devs!
-
2
-
-
59 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Hello all,
The beta is finalized and is scheduled to be deployed tomorrow after an internal testing.
Thank you all for the continued support and understanding.
Good to see you're okay! I was honestly worried due to the lack of news!
-
3 minutes ago, Drenzul said:
Really sounds like you are been overly picky and entitled. They already replied Friday why they haven't released it yet.
Is not the fact that they haven't released, but the fact that they have been gone and completely silent on any possible channel for nearly a week by now what makes people speculate and fear the worst.
-
5
-
-
Yeah, an that was the same statement we got here. So, no news over what we got here.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, davidt_man said:
The devs did post on the Steam forum that the new patch has some game breaking bugs and would be delayed by a few days.
Where? I just checked the Steam topic, there has been no notification on that regard since Friday. Pretty much the same as here.
-
Yeah, but if that's really the problem, coming by and saying "Hey, the update is going to be delayed due to unexpected bugs" would take them literally one minute. And we would really appreciate being informed.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:
I think they could charge more, it’s too cheap given the volume of content we're going to get and comparing it to WOWS earnings. Already we’re into the hundreds of hours of gameplay mark, soon with the campaign expansion (and following later a full campaign), we’ll be in the thousands of hours of gameplay mark, quality gameplay and no rival too.
IMO that’s worth a better return, especially with no DLCs.
This might, and more that likely will, be true in the future, specially once the campaign gets fleshed out. But in its CURRRENT STATE, as I specificly mention in my previous post, in my opinion is not even remotely close to be worth 35€. The only thing the game is good at right now is building ships, and for that, you can get games which offer better fucntionality for like half of what this game costs, I could name a couple of examples, but it is strictly forbidden under the forum rules. So, yeah. You aren't going to change my mind. The campaign is what makes this game, and anything else they add is pretty much worthless until the campaign is reasonably functional.
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:Ah but their history is that Dev's have delivered. Including fixing bugs when captured, especially game breaking one's. Those hotfixes run out within days, if not hours.
I'm not criticising it, in fact, their response when game breaking bugs are found is superb. I'm saying that I see reasonable that right now, they ignore non-gamebreaking bugs, as they have, and should have, other priorities.
-
17 hours ago, Captain Meow said:
I thought this was fixed in earlier patch regarding guns clipping through objects...
It feels like all these small bugs/errors in ship designer are either overlooked or known but developers have better things to do. Wish I could provide quite a gallery of issues that just don't let design freely & realistically, if only developers would be willing to fix them in the following updates.
For example in that above pic, it's not possible to place aft tower at the end of the deck how the real ship had it nor is possible to place 71mm deck guns in that area where there ARE mounting points for them, because of some conflicting borders.
My two cents: At this point of the developing path in which, given the high pricetag for what the game currently offers, they are risking their game starting to flood on bad reviews if they don't deliver a playable campaign soon, which might de facto kill the proyect, basically I pretty much suspect that non game breaking bugs are pretty much being ignored (AKA being given very low priority) in favour of taking the main feature of the game to a playable status. It is what I would do if I wwre on their place, to be honest.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Captain Meow said:
For this certain hull the aft superfiring turret can do complete 360 turn with it's guns going through hull.
That's a know collision detection bug. It also happens on frontal turrets on pre dreadnoughts with certain gun-towers combinations
-
On 2/17/2022 at 8:39 AM, neph said:
The distinction between hulls is arbitrary & prevents design creativity, particularly with the constraints of armor & armament on "light cruisers". The two classes ought to be merged.
Now, you might say, this is madness. What blasphemy! Cruisers have always come in "heavy" & "light"--surely you don't want to throw history out the window??
Ah, but there you are, my thoughtful reader. There existed absolutely no distinction between cruiser types until as late as 1930. To distinguish the classes before this is pure fiction.
But what happened in the year 1930? Why, the London Naval Treaty happened! Let me back up a bit: back in the 1920s, the Washington Naval Treaty said that all warships which weren't a battleship or carrier may have no more than 8" guns & 10,000 tons of standard displacement. Also, the Washington Naval Treaty said you couldn't build any battleships for 15ish years. Of course, everybody immediately began building 8", 10,000 ton cruisers to effect foreign policy & protect trade routes. However... it's worth noting that a 10,000 ton cruiser can really only have either 8" guns OR substantial armor, and everybody picked the former. Keep that in mind.
Okay, so what about the London Naval Treaty? At the London Naval Treaty, cruisers were arbitrarily divided into "heavy" and "light" cruisers--with no prior basis for this division! "Heavy" cruisers were newly defined to be those with 8" guns, and "light" cruisers were defined to be those with 6.1" guns or smaller! Why the distinction? Because the treaty placed limits on how many heavy cruisers signatories could build, but no restriction whatsoever on the number of light cruisers. (Both had total displacement limits.) Side note: at this point, "destroyers" were also official defined as those ships with smaller than 5.1" guns and less than ~2,000 tons standard displacement. Anyways, everybody started building light cruisers because although undergunned, 6.1" light cruisers were more than capable of crippling the lightly armored "heavy" 10,000 ton cruisers, and they could build as many as they wanted.
So what's the point? The point is that all the wargames that you know and love use this arbitrary historical terminology which barely existed before the treaties were signed. That's great for WoWS or whatever, but the UAD universe is one which very explicitly does not have naval arms reduction treaties. Why do you think you're building 80,000 ton behemoths in 1932 & 120,000 ton leviathans in 1940? Why do you think everything has 18" or 20" guns? Because the joy of UAD is a world without the arbitrary restrictions of history.
Then why are we restricted by naval treaty nonsense with the small ships? Why do light cruisers exist? Their role: of being heavy cruiser killers & large torpedo sleds without the numerical limits of heavy cruisers or the displacement limits of destroyers, does not exist in the UAD world! Before the treaty limits, "heavy" cruisers and "light" cruisers all existed along an uninhibited spectrum, allowed to exist as the designer desired. The limitations: that I can't put 12" guns on a "heavy cruiser, or that I can't put 9" guns or more than 6" of armor on a "light cruiser", is all silly.
Get rid of the restrictions and let us design freely!
In that... you're pretty much wrong. Ships classified as Light Cruisers are documented as early as the mid 1890s, as it was the name that the old unprotected cruisers took. And the split existed: There were light cruisers, and protected cruisers. The differences is that protected cruisers traded speed for armour instead of heavier weaponry, so they will be our light and heavy cruisers here. Another, completely different thing, is that Armoured Cruisers should be classified as Battlecruisers rather than Heavy cruisers for game mechanics, as Armoured cruisers were much closer to battlecruisers than to heavy cruisers.
-
33 minutes ago, ilguisco said:
It's still confirmed today or it's delayed?
Given the relatively late hour, laborally speaking, I smell delay.
-
1
-
-
That restriction is pretty much temporary, for testing purposes. Basically is placed there because otherwhise most people would skip the pre dreadnought era, and it would remain untested. Remember that what is now called "Early access" is nothing else but beta testing.
I'm sure that at later developement stages, once the game is close to the final release, that will be lifted.
-
1 hour ago, TheBestBanana said:
what time zone is this roughly for
Based on their loction, I'll say likely CET, or GMT/UTC +1
-
1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:
Agreed. They are definitely lacking. Especially since guns scale up faster in size than allowed hull size. Hopefully with the beam and length changes we can finally fit those four wing turrets Germans had.
That is of course, not forgetting the various semi-dreads. Still waiting on 9 and 8 inch secondary turrets and 7 inch casemates.
And let's not forget 8" casemate main guns for Armoured Cruisers, and 6" casemate main guns for protected/ light cruisers. For crying out loud, even by the mid 1920s there where still CLs being built with casemate mounted main guns (Yes, Omaha and Svetlana, I'm looking at you) yet the option for casemate mounted main guns isn't even available.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:
It's very annoying that even though you have like every part to accurately build a some existed ship, eventually you find there's just something that doesn't work well. Overhanging side turrets for HMS Dreadnought or go with smaller caliber to have them within the beam, shortened hull length between midships side turrets & aft side turrets for hull of the French Massena, turreted versions of 51-76mm deck guns for Russian hulls of 1890-1905 when that's not how it was or go without them, very long hull than the original 1890's Brandenburg had, same tower for all US BBs & BCs during 1930-1940, etc.
Yeah. And those french Ironclads, in which the Pelayo is supposed to be based off, yet the Pelayo is not buildable because they don't admit the 11" wing turrets she had.
-
3 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:
Wish it was possible to also change length of the hull smoothly by adding/excluding several midsection blocks like 10m in length. So far the hull length changes with displacement slider & for every hull model there's only 2-3 length versions.
Not sure if changing length by visually stretching/distorting the hull would be a good way though.Hopefully with the upcoming changeable beam I could make an accurate looking HMS dreadnought without overhanging side turrets!
Agree. I had the same problem with the España and the Helgoland. And reproducing the Radetzky was simply impossible.
>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)
in General Discussions
Posted
Okay, thanks. That is going to be the problem. I'll try sending them to the port.